Iapl/35/2022 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) And Another v. M/S Ghaziabad Development Authority

Court No. - 3 1. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 35 of 2022Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) And AnotherRespondent :- M/S Ghaziabad Development AuthorityCounsel for Appellant :- Ashish AgrawalCounsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Mehrotra, Anshul Mittal WITH 2. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 33 of 2022Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax And AnotherRespondent :- M/S Ghaziabad Development AuthorityCounsel for Appellant :- Ashish Agrawal 3. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 41 of 2022Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax And AnotherRespondent :- M/S Aligarh Development AuthorityCounsel for Appellant :- Ashish AgrawalCounsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Mehrotra 4. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 48 of 2022Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions Lucknow And AnotherRespondent :- M/S Ghaziabad Development AuthorityCounsel for Appellant :- Ashish AgrawalCounsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Mehrotra,Anshul Mittal 5. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 53 of 2022 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions Lucknow And AnotherRespondent :- M/S Haridwar Development AuthorityCounsel for Appellant :- Ashish Agrawal 6. Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 67 of 2022Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax And AnotherRespondent :- M/S Ghaziabad Development AuthorityCounsel for Appellant :- Ashish AgrawalCounsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Mehrotra,Anshul Mittal Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1.Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant and SriAbhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent/DevelopmentAuthority. 2.The facts and controversy involved in this Bunch of appeals aresimilar and, therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the partiesthe Income Tax Appeal No.35 of 2022 is treated as a leading appeal andfacts thereof are being noted. 3.Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent –assessee is a Development Authority constituted under the provisions ofthe U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 with the object ofdevelopment of areas according to plan and for that purpose, the authorityhas been empowered to acquire, hold, manage and dispose land and otherproperties to carry out building activities, engineering and otheroperations etc. For the Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessment of therespondent - assessee was framed under Section 147/143(3) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1961”), afterdisallowance of assessee’s claim of exemption under Section 11 of theAct, 1961 and an addition of Rs.3,46,03,14,429/- being the net amounttransferred to Infrastructure Development Fund, was determined asIncome of the Respondent - Development Authority/Assessee. Theexemption was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground thatregistration under Section 12AA granted to the assesee stood cancelledvide order dated 31.03.2014, passed by the CIT, Ghaziabad. Further, theAssessing Officer has disputed the charitable nature of activities carriedout by the respondent – assessee in terms of Section 2(15) of the Act,1961. 4.Aggrieved with the assessment order the respondent - assesseepreferred an Appeal before the CIT (A) who dismissed the appeal.Therefore, the respondent – assessee had filed appeal before the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘C’ : New Delhi. The Tribunalconsidered the submissions of both the sides and recorded the followingfindings/held, as under :- 4.Aggrieved with the assessment order the respondent - assesseepreferred an Appeal before the CIT (A) who dismissed the appeal.Therefore, the respondent – assessee had filed appeal before the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘C’ : New Delhi. The Tribunalconsidered the submissions of both the sides and recorded the followingfindings/held, as under :- “3.1 With respect to ground Nos.3 to 6, the Ld. AR submitted that theissue of cancellation of registration u/s 12AA of the Act had beenconsidered by this Tribunal and the Tribunal had restored theregistration u/s 12AA vide order dated 29.04.2019 in ITANo.2400/Del/2014. A copy of the said order was placed on record bythe Ld. AR and it was submitted that the Tribunal, after taking note ofthe objects and activities of the assessee had held that the objects ofthe assessee were charitable in nature in terms of Section 2(15) of theAct and further that the assessee was entitled to registration u/s 12AAof the Act. The Ld. AR argued that once the objects and activities wereheld to be charitable there remained no basis for denying the benefit ofexemption u/s 11 of the Act. 5.0 Having heard the rival submissions and having perused thematerial on record, we note that the issue for our consideration is theallowability of assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 read withprovisions of Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee authority has beencreated under the UP Urban Planning Development Act, 1973 with thepreliminary object of undertaking planned development in specifiedarea. For the purpose of ascertaining eligibility u/s 11 of the Act, it isimportant to analyze and understand the objects, purpose andoperational structure of the authority so as to as certain whether theactivities carried out by the assessee fall within the definition ofcharitable purpose as defined u/s 2(15) of the Act while keeping inmind the language and intent of the proviso as well as. However, wenote that this exercise has been cut short by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No.2400/Del/2014wherein, while deciding the eligibility of registration u/s 12A of the Act,the Tribunal had the occasion to indepth examine the objects andactivities of the assessee authority in context of Section 2(15) of theAct. The Tribunal proceeded to restore the registration u/s 12AA of theAct by holding as under: “13 In the case of Navodaya Education Trust and G D SinglaCharitable Trust mentioned Supra the registration was refused as theentities were operated by a single family unit. In the case of SelfEmployers Service Society, it was held that there was no charitableactivity undertaken by the society. Similarly the case of UPDA, therewas no finding of charitable work undertaken by the association. Thecase of Travancore Education Society the registration was cancelleddue to collection of capitation fee which was prohibited by law. Thuswe find none of the cases referred to by the revenue were in the work ofdevelopment of townships or city development by the local bodies /improvement trust/ developing authority. The facts and the operations of the assessee and the cases refereed above are on different set ofcircumstances. The only relevant cases referred by the revenue namelyJDA and Baddi Barotiwala development authority have been welldifferentiated by various courts and tribunal as mentioned above andregistration was allowed to various development agencies,development authorities, improvement trust by whatever name they areknown and in the same line of operation as that of the assessee inquestion. 14. We also find registration under section 12 AA was directed to begranted by various courts/tribunals in the case of • Moradabad Development Authority, • Jaipur Development Authority, • Ahmdabad_Urban Development Authority, • Jodhpur Development Authority, • Improvement Trust, Moga, • Improvement Trust, Sangrur, • Improvement Trust, Khanna, • Improvement Trust, Kapurthala • Haridwar Development Authority 14. We also find registration under section 12 AA was directed to begranted by various courts/tribunals in the case of • Moradabad Development Authority, • Jaipur Development Authority, • Ahmdabad_Urban Development Authority, • Jodhpur Development Authority, • Improvement Trust, Moga, • Improvement Trust, Sangrur, • Improvement Trust, Khanna, • Improvement Trust, Kapurthala • Haridwar Development Authority • Agra Development Authority 16 Further we also find that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has heldthat the objects and activities of Ghaziabad Development Authority aresuch that it is eligible for benefit of registration u/s 12A even afterproviso to section 2(15) is taken into consideration. The proviso tosection 2(15) has been considered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court inassessee's own fase in the order, therefore the judgment ofjurisdictional High Court will have the primacy. The Authority GDA iscreation of state of U.P UP Urban Planning and Development Act,1973where as the other improvement trusts are creation of variousstate laws involving similar activities. Further examination of theactivities of the assessee with regard to the objectives, whether themanner in which the assessee trust was conducting its activitiesconstituted advancement of general public utility as set out in section2(15) and further whether the work ceased to be for charitable purposedue to the first proviso to section 2(15) which lays down that theadvancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be acharitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in thenature of trade, commerce or business, irrespective of the nature of useor application, or retention of the income from such activity we findthat the assessee has not brought any changes in the objectives whichforces the revenue to change its earlier stand. As long as the object ofgeneral public utility is not merely a mask to hide true purpose orrendering of any service in relation thereto, and where such servicesare being rendered as purely incidental to or as subservient to the mainobjective of ‘general public utility', the carrying on of bonafideactivities in furtherance of such objectives of ‘general public utility'cannot be hit by proviso to s. 2(15). 17 Hence keeping in view the provisions of the act , objectives of theassessee , judgment in the case of the assessee by the Hon'ble Highcourt of Allahabad, approvals given in the case of other towndevelopment agencies, we hold that the assessee trust is carrying outcharitable activity of advancement of public utility and the businessactivity carried out by it are incidental to the attainment of its mainobject and thus the proviso to section 2(15) is not attracted in the assesses case. We therefore hold that the assessee is entitled forrestoration of registration u/s 12AA of the income Tax, 1961.” 5.1 Therefore, in view of the above observations of the CoordinateBench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case restoring the registrationu/s 12AA of the Act, we are of the opinion that the objects of theassessee authority are charitable in nature and the same are not hit byproviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act. However, we direct the AssessingOfficer to examine the activities of the assessee authority and if thesame are found to be in consonance with the objects, the benefit ofexemption u/s 11 is to be allowed. Accordingly, Ground Nos.3 to 6 areallowed for statistical purposes. 8.0 We have considered the arguments of both the parties with respectto Ground Nos. 7 & 8 and have also gone through the material onrecord. We note that the issue of nature and taxability of amounttransferred to the Infrastructure Development Fund was consideredby the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of SaharanpurDevelopment Authority in ITA No.4113/Del/2017 vide order dated24.03.2021 wherein it was held as under: 8.0 We have considered the arguments of both the parties with respectto Ground Nos. 7 & 8 and have also gone through the material onrecord. We note that the issue of nature and taxability of amounttransferred to the Infrastructure Development Fund was consideredby the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of SaharanpurDevelopment Authority in ITA No.4113/Del/2017 vide order dated24.03.2021 wherein it was held as under: “6. It is noted from the material on record that in the case, similarissue has been decided in the case of the assessee for the assessmentyears 2004-05 to 2007-08 by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT “G”Bench, Delhi where in it was held that, “the appellant has received infra structure funds under the orders o f Govt. o f U.P. and it wasrequired to use such funds as per the direction of the High PoweredCommittee and has no control over the said funds. There fore, theinterest income from such funds is not the income o f the appellant.” 7.This observation has been given consistently by the ITAT in favour ofthe assessee for the Assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08. Further ,the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of LucknowDevelopment Authority has held that the money transferred to the Infrastructure fund account is to be utilized for the purpose of the pro jectsas specified by the Committee having constituted by the StateGovernment and cannot be treated as belonging to the authority orreceipt is taxable nature in its hand.” 8.1 Identical issue was also considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in thecase of Khurja Development Authority vs. ACIT in ITANo.5103/Del/2016 vide order dated 03.04.2019. The relevantobservations of the Co-ordinate Bench are reproduced herein under:“12. As regards, the addition made on account of infrastructure fund,Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon the judgment of Allahabad HighCourt in the case of CIT vs. Lucknow Development Authority 265 CTR433 in which it was held as under: “Where the trust is carrying out itsactivities on noncommercial lines with no motive to earn profits, orfulfillment of its aims and objectives, which are charitable in natureand in the process earn some profits, the same would not be hit byproviso to section 2(15).” 13. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that this issue is related toexemption u/s 11 of the Act and that assessee is custodian of theamount in question and this amount can be used by the assessee as perdirections of the State Authorities. Therefore, it can never be theincome of the assessee. 13. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that this issue is related toexemption u/s 11 of the Act and that assessee is custodian of theamount in question and this amount can be used by the assessee as perdirections of the State Authorities. Therefore, it can never be theincome of the assessee. 14. Ld. DR, however, submitted that this issue has been decided indetail by the CIT(Appeals), therefore, the order may be maintained. 15.After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that thisissue also requires reconsideration at the level of the AO. The assesseehas now been granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act and thus,assessee is entitled for exemption from income u/s 11 of the Act as perlaw. Even if the infrastructure reserve fund may be treated as income ofassessee, it will have to be examined, whether, assessee is entitled forexemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same income. Therefore, it woulddepend upon fundings with regard to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Wehave already restored the issue of exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the AOfor fresh decision as per law. Further, the authorities below have notappreciated the fact that assessee claimed that infrastructure fund wasreceived for development activities from the State Authorities, theassessee has to spend the amount on the same as per approval of theState Authorities. Thus, there may not be any profit element out of thesame sources. It may also be noted here that whatever amount has beenspent by assessee on the same issue, the AO has accepted that assesseespent the same amount as per the directions of the State Authorities.Then in that event it is difficult to believe that part amount is capitalreceipt and part would be Revenue in nature. Therefore, there was nojustification for Ld. CIT(A) to hold that the impugned receipt isRevenue in nature. This issue also requires reconsideration in view ofthe fact that assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. We,accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below on the issue ofinfrastructure fund as well and restore the issue to the file of AO withdirection to redecide the issue as per law by giving reasonableopportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5.The impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal showsthat the order cancelling the registration under Section 12 AA of the Act,1961 has been set aside by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has restored theregistration of the respondent - assessee under Section 12 AA of the Act,1961 by order dated 29.04.2019 in ITA No.2400/DEL/2014. In paragraph5.1 the tribunal has recorded the findings of fact that the nature of activityof the respondent - assessee is charitable and it is not hit by proviso ofSection 2(15) of the Act, 1961. The Tribunal has remanded the matter tothe Assessing Officer to examine the activity of the respondent - assesseeand if it is found to be inconsonance with the object the benefit ofexemption under Section 11 has been directed to be allowed. The Tribunalhas also considered the taxability of the amount transferred to theInfrastructure Development Fund and followed its decision dated24.03.2021 in ITA No.4113/DEL/2017 and directed the Assessing Officerto adjudicate the issue afresh keeping in mind the ratio laid down by Co- ordinate benches of the Tribunal in Saharanpur Development Authoritiescase and Khurja Development Authorities’. Thus, the tribunal hasremanded the matter to the assessing officer to examine the activities ofthe respondent assessee for allowing benefit of exemption under Section11 of the Act. The assessing officer has also been directed to adjudicatethe issue of transfer of fund to infrastructure development fund in terms ofthe ratio laid down by Co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case ofSaharanpur Development Authorities and Khurja Development Authority.That apart the question of grant of registration under Section 12 AA of theAct, 1961 to Development Authority like the present respondent assessee,was considered by Co-ordinate bench of this court in Income Tax AppealNo. 657 of 2007 and other connected appeals decided on 29.08.2016 inthe matters of Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority, GhaziabadDevelopment Authority, Kanpur Development Authority, A.D.A.Allahabad, Alighar Development Authority, Jhansi DevelopmentAuthority, Gorkahpur Development Authority and Banda DevelopmentAuthority in various income Tax appeals and it was held in paragraphs 18,19, 20, 21 and 22 as under : “18. We find it unnecessary to go for much research work and debateissue further for the reason that in respect to a similar authority,namely, "Lucknow Development Authority", which is also constitutedunder U.P. Act, 1973, a similar question, whether activities ofDevelopment Authority can be said to be 'charitable' as defined underSection 2(15) came up for consideration before a Division Bench inCIT Vs. Lucknow Development Authority 2014 (98) DTR (All) 183 andCourt held as under: "21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone throughthe material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee is a "statutory authority" whichwas established under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Planningand Development Act, 1973. In the instant case, prior to 1st April,2003, the assessee was enjoying exemption under Section 10(20A) andSection 10(29). When these provisions were amended w.e.f. 1st April,2003, then the necessity arose to register these institutions underSection 12A. In view of the objects, there is no good reason for holdingthat statutory bodies could not be treated as "charitable" within themeaning of Section 2(15). The object of the "Authority" is to provideshelter to the homeless people, therefore, there is no objectionablematerial to treat these institutions as non-charitable. The registrationunder Section 12A is mandatory to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It isalways open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of incomeof these assessees, to examine the claim of the assessees under Sections11 & 13 and give such treatment to these institutions as is warranted bythe facts of the case. Revenue Authorities are always at liberty tocancel the registration under Section 12AA(3). Moreover, it may bementioned that the benefit of Section 11 is not absolutse or conclusive.It is subject to control of Sections 60 to 63. If it is found by keeping inview the provisions of Sections 60 to 63 that it is not so includible thensuch income does not qualify for any relief." & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It isalways open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return of incomeof these assessees, to examine the claim of the assessees under Sections11 & 13 and give such treatment to these institutions as is warranted bythe facts of the case. Revenue Authorities are always at liberty tocancel the registration under Section 12AA(3). Moreover, it may bementioned that the benefit of Section 11 is not absolutse or conclusive.It is subject to control of Sections 60 to 63. If it is found by keeping inview the provisions of Sections 60 to 63 that it is not so includible thensuch income does not qualify for any relief." "25. Further, it may be mentioned that Section 12AA of the Act laysdown the procedure for registration in relation to the conditions forapplicability of Sections 11 & 12 as provided in Section 12A.Therefore, once the procedure is complete as provided in sub-section(1) of Section 12AA and a certificate is issued granting registration tothe trust or institution the certificate is a document evidencingsatisfaction about (i) the genuineness of the activities of the trust orinstitution, and (ii) about the objects of the trust or institution. Section12A stipulates that the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 shall not apply inrelation to income of a trust or an institution unless the conditionsstipulated therein are fulfilled. Thus, granting of registration underSection 12AA denotes that the conditions laid down in Section 12Astand fulfilled. 26. The effect of such a certificate of registration under Section 12AAA,therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officerby adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling theconditions for applicability of Sections 11 & 12. In the case ofGestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (SC) 371 : (1979)117 ITR 1 (SC), the Apex Court was called upon to determine as towhether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as abusiness expenditure, the requirement being contribution should bemade to a recognized provident fund. 27. Needless to mention that this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs.M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No. 70 of2009 observed that the Forest Corporation being an statutory entity isentitled for the registration under Section 12A of the Act. The saidobservations was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its orderdated 12th May, 2011 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2590 of2011. 28. We may also like to refer a C.B.D.T. Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated19th December, 2008 [(2009) 221 CTR (St) 1 : (2009) 17 DTR (St) 1]wherein the applicability of the commercial activities in respect ofcharitable purpose has been clarified. The said circular is reproducedas below: "2.2. 'Relief of the poor' encompasses a wide range of objects for thewelfare of the economically and socially disadvantaged or needy. Itwill, therefore, include within its ambit purposes such as relief todestitute, orphans or the handicapped, disadvantaged women orchildren, small and marginal farmers, indigent artisans or seniorcitizens in need of aid. Entities who have these objects will continue tobe eligible for exemption even if they incidentally carry on acommercial activity, subject, however, to the conditions stipulatedunder Section 11(4A) or the seventh proviso to Section 10(23C), whichare that- (i) the business should be incidental to the attainment of the objectivesof the entity, and(ii) separate books of accounts should be maintained in respect of suchbusiness." "2.2. 'Relief of the poor' encompasses a wide range of objects for thewelfare of the economically and socially disadvantaged or needy. Itwill, therefore, include within its ambit purposes such as relief todestitute, orphans or the handicapped, disadvantaged women orchildren, small and marginal farmers, indigent artisans or seniorcitizens in need of aid. Entities who have these objects will continue tobe eligible for exemption even if they incidentally carry on acommercial activity, subject, however, to the conditions stipulatedunder Section 11(4A) or the seventh proviso to Section 10(23C), whichare that- (i) the business should be incidental to the attainment of the objectivesof the entity, and(ii) separate books of accounts should be maintained in respect of suchbusiness." 29. For the applicability of proviso to Section 2(15), the activities ofthe trust should be carried out on commercial lines with intention tomake profit. Where the trust is carrying out its activities on non-commercial lines with no motive to earn profits, for fulfillment of itsaims and objectives, which are charitable in nature and in the processearn some profits, the same would not be hit by proviso to section2(15). The aims and objects of the assessee-trust are admittedlycharitable in nature. 30. Mere selling some product at a profit will not ipso facto hitassessee by applying proviso to Section 2(15) and deny exemptionavailable under Section 11. The intention of the trustees and themanner in which the activities of the charitable trust institution areundertaken are highly relevant to decide the issue of applicability ofproviso to Section 2(15). 31. There is no material/evidence brought on record by the revenuewhich may suggest that the assessee was conducting its affairs oncommercial lines with motive to earn profit or has deviated from itsobjects as detailed in the trust deed of the assessee. In these facts andcircumstances of the case, the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicableto the facts and circumstances of the case, and the assessee wasentitled to exemption provided under Section 11 for the relevantassessment year. 32. From the record, it also appears that the "authority" had beenmaintaining infrastructure, development and reserve fund IDRF as perthe notification dated 15th January, 1998, the money transferred to thisfunds is to be utilized for the purpose of project as specified by thecommitted having constituted by the State Government under the saidnotification and the same could not be treated to be belonging to the"authority" or the receipt of taxable nature in its hands. For this reasonalso, it appears that the funds are utilized for general utility." 19. The findings and observations in the aforesaid judgment aresquarely applicable in the case in hand also. 20. We also find that another statutory body, namely, Krishi UtpadanMandi Samiti constituted under U.P. Krishi Utpadan MandiAdhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1964") was alsoregistered under Section 12AA of Act, 1961 and the question whetheramount transferred to Mandi Parishad would constitute application ofincome for 'charitable purpose' under Section 11(1)(a) of Act, 1961 hasbeen decided against Revenue by Supreme Court in Commissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti 2012 (12) SCC 267wherein Court has also confirmed this Court's judgment dated04.12.2009 passed by this Court at Lucknow in I.T.A. No. 102 of 2009.21. In view of above, we answer above question against Revenue andconfirm judgment of Tribunal impugned in all these appeals.22. All the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.” 6.The appellant herein has challenged the aforesaid judgment of thisCourt dated 29.8.2016 in Income Tax Appeal No.657 of 2007 6.The appellant herein has challenged the aforesaid judgment of thisCourt dated 29.8.2016 in Income Tax Appeal No.657 of 2007 (Commissioner of Income Tax Ghaziabad and another Vs. Hapur PikhuwaDevelopment Authority Preet Vihar) in Special Leave Petition (Civil)Diary No(s).26127 of 2018 which was dismissed by Hon’ble SupremeCourt by order dated 27.08.2018 with cost of Rs.10 lacs. The aforesaidorder of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.08.2018 is reproduced below : “This petition for special to leave has been filed by the Commissionerof Income Tax, Ghaziabad. First of all this petition has been filed after a delay of 596 days. Thereis an inadequate and unconvincing explanation given for the delay infiling the petition. Secondly, it is mentioned in the proforma for first listing that a similarmatter being C.A. No. 7096/2012 is pending in this Court. However,the office has given a report stating that C.A. No. 7096/2012 wasdecided by this Court as far back as on 27.09.2012. In other words, thepetitioners have given a totally misleading statement before this Court. We are shocked that the Union of India through the Commissioner ofIncome Tax has taken the matter so casually. As we have noted, there is an inadequate explanation of delay of 596days in filing the petition and a misleading statement about pendencyof a similar civil appeal. Under the circumstances, we dismiss thepetition with costs of Rs.10 lacs to be paid to the Supreme Court LegalServices Committee within four weeks from today. The amount beutilized for juvenile justice issues. List the matter for compliance after four weeks.” 7.In view of the facts and circumstances and legal position as notedabove, we find that no substantial question of law is involved in theimpugned order of the Tribunal. The controversy is concluded by findingsof fact and the judgments of this Court as affirmed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court. 8.In view of the aforesaid, all the appeals are dismissed and all thepending applications are disposed of. Order Date :- 4.8.2022/vkg